|
I would buy Spreadcoin and wait for a year or so, but right now I probably wouldn't invest.
Maybe Ethereum would be a good investment, but I wouldn't risk it. Microsoft invested in a company using it but I don't know if that helps.
Right now I'm saving up my coins. Hopefully in 5 months I'll have 0.5 btc.
|
|
|
|
|
If China starts using Bitcoin we can definitely expect a big price increase. I hope to see the $1000 days again, this time with a Bitcoin or two.
|
|
|
|
|
I think at the end of every year there is a massive pump and then when the year starts there is a big dump.
Except last year the pump never happened but the dump did.
I think this is a yearly or bi yearly cycle.
|
|
|
|
|
My prediction is that it will keep rising to +$1000.
But that is just my prediction. Whether I believe it is another matter. If I was you I'd wait, and hope that I'm wrong.
|
|
|
|
I think faucets is good for Bitcoin, especially for Blockchain.
And it would be even better if they giveaway a big rewards
Who doesn't like free money, right?
Dude, faucets suck, I would rather go into a raffle with 100 people for the chance to win 0.01 btc than stay at a faucet for a year and finally get the 0.01 btc. Raffles are in my opinion better if they are free. |
|
|
|
Hello, I would like the join this campaign. I know I haven't made many posts lately but I am going to start again right now. Your username and link to your Bitcoin Talk profile: e1ghtSpaceCurrent member rank: Hero Member Current post count: 2465 (including this post) Your Magicaldice username: e1ghtSpace Thanks! |
|
|
|
I spend most of my time on bitcointalk other then that i am active on Facebook only.so tell me which site you like to spend most of your time other then facebook?
https://forum.bitcoin.com/I didn't even realise there was another forum. Will be joining.  |
|
|
|
This thread is dead.
Or rather, this thread was dead until you resurrected it to the top again; it is now a zombie thread.  Would be nice to close this thread  No it wouldn't. I'm sorry I just had to. Haha. I'm glad you did. Hey, we missed the one year anniversary for the last reply. Oh well. |
|
|
|
Now this looks like an awesome coin. I'd love to help out when I can. Back To The Future Part III is playing on my local TV station now Also not far from me there is a guy who owns/made a 100% working replica BTTF Delorian, everything is identical, you can even hire it  Haha, dude I swear we are the same person, alway running into each other. I guess we like the same stuff. |
|
|
|
|
Has development continued or has it stopped?
|
|
|
|
|
I hate to ask, but has development started yet or are we still discussing options?
Is there an open source public bot that works on the current version?
|
|
|
|
Is this coin still alive?
You can still sync, so I guess so. |
|
|
|
Damn that sucks. You know I think humans would have a fair chance against the bots even now if our maps had a filter. Do you know how long your bot takes to complete a level on average (after it finds a map)
After the last patch came out (that uses pathfinding to eliminate easy fall-through levels) map filters became almost useless so I didn't even bother with them too much. The best filter now is just to try to actually solve the level. At least for bots. They enumerate tens or hundreds of levels per second and just try to solve them. But I still believe that humans can filter maps much better than bots. Humans can look at the map and almost immediatelly see some good ways to solve it. For example, they can see some small hole and quickly decide if it would be possible to squeeze through it or not (I don't mean that they simply measure the size of that hole, but that they take into account many other parameters such as if there is enough space around that hole, possible trajectories to enter that hole and so on). The problem is that they can't then ride the bike along that choosen trajectory as quickly as bots can. It would be interesting if humans could draw the rough trajectory (with desired bike orientations) or just somehow lead the bike with the mouse and the rest of the work was up to the bot. This hybrid cound possibly outperform even current bots. Can you please refresh me on your solution? I don't recall hearing about it. Interesting thoughts about humans, but when I watch bot replays I can see an almost straight line to the finish line. But when I look through levels, by the time I find such a level where there is a clear path time is almost up to solve the level. It is almost impossible for me to solve levels. You can see in my video, I finally found a block after 35 minutes of searching. I came close once but the time just wasn't long enough for me to grab the coins. Actually you're right. Thinking back to the first days of Motocoin, I could get one block at least every 10 minutes, and I wasn't even trying hard. Right now I need to try very hard and the only reason I got that block on the video is because the bots didn't find a block for 3 minutes. You can see I even gave up because I thought I wouldn't have enough time (when I sent that girl a message) but then I somehow managed to gab the coin at the end. |
|
|
|
Also, I think there is no way to allow 60 sec maps for humans anyway. Bots are incredibly good at solving 60 sec levels. In fact, human levels should have target time smaller than real blockchain levels.
It would also be very interesting if you try to solve the level with the same target time as you did before (27 sec) but without force restarts and compare how much easier it was. You can start the level and then unplug your internet connection to disable restarts (you will not get any reward of course).
Damn that sucks. You know I think humans would have a fair chance against the bots even now if our maps had a filter. Do you know how long your bot takes to complete a level on average (after it finds a map) There is absolutelly no difference between your solution and mine in this particular aspect (if I understand your solution correctly). If you just divide 10 moto from each block among all free solutions in last 10 blocks you will get almost the same result.
Can you please refresh me on your solution? I don't recall hearing about it. |
|
|
|
Hey ElvenArcher (and/or HunterMinerCrafter), what do you think about this idea? In this what is "number of blocks to average?" Just an arbitrarily selected constant? Can you elaborate on what the advantage would be over a small, fixed amount being distributed, with a percentage going to the "real" block miner? The "number of blocks to average" would always be a specific value such as 10. The advantage over a small fixed amount is that it will encourage humans to mine (by giving them a higher reward) when few are mining and a lower reward when lots are mining. This will then also allow us to control the money supply better. Otherwise if hundreds of humans started mining the moneysupply would increase dramatically. If we also make it so that a human must solve their map within 10 blocks of their map being first generated then it stops people from this attack: Someone uses a bot to create 100 "human" mined maps and then releases them all in one block. Unless they have a really fast bot of course... Ideally humans should only have 3 blocks to solve their map to stop this kind of attack. I find it quite easy to solve a 60 second map in 2 minutes. I'm assuming you guys think this its a bad idea or I am annoying you with posts. Sorry. |
|
|
|
This is a good time to get it cheap, but be quick! The developer came back after almost a year long break. If you buy at 120 sats you can probably sell at 1000. |
|
|
|
I understand what Archer means now, I think. What he intends could be done without being vulnerable to an attack on the complexity, he is correct there. However, there is still a bit of a potential problem in that it increases complexity at all. We would still need to be able to quantify this increase in block validity checking time.
Ok, I'm happy now. We can leave that hash table behind and proceed with 24h solution. Wow that was entertaining. Unfortunatelly, target time would be much more severe if there were 1000 bot miners instead of 10. P.S. You mined 12 blocks in half an hour on 08.04.2015, did you mine them with public bot? Yes. I also mined a few more today with the bot. |
|
|
|
If anyone thought Human Mining was not possible, well, you're wrong! I have successfully mined a block! It took around 40 minutes, but I did it! I have uploaded the video to youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCPHtSjqNI0 |
|
|
|
I really like this coin.
Do you guys want me to setup a block explorer ?
I can setup and host a block explorer for 0.10 BTC per year.
One of our developers, HunterMinerCrafter had a block explorer, but took it down. (I think?) |
|
|
|
In this what is "number of blocks to average?" Just an arbitrarily selected constant? Can you elaborate on what the advantage would be over a small, fixed amount being distributed, with a percentage going to the "real" block miner? The "number of blocks to average" would always be a specific value such as 10. The advantage over a small fixed amount is that it will encourage humans to mine (by giving them a higher reward) when few are mining and a lower reward when lots are mining. This will then also allow us to control the money supply better. Otherwise if hundreds of humans started mining the moneysupply would increase dramatically. If we also make it so that a human must solve their map within 10 blocks of their map being first generated then it stops people from this attack: Someone uses a bot to create 100 "human" mined maps and then releases them all in one block. Unless they have a really fast bot of course... Ideally humans should only have 3 blocks to solve their map to stop this kind of attack. I find it quite easy to solve a 60 second map in 2 minutes. Since it seems that what you are talking about can't have anything to do with block verification (but is instead just some "personal use" thing, although I don't yet understand what use...) we must be arguing about two different things, anyway? Maybe he is thinking that the miner will check if they have duplicated the map. But that doesn't make any sense... I'm probably wrong. Edit: Actually no, rereading his response I have no idea what he means either. Also, technically, at one point, every single possible level will have been generated, stopping the whole network... But I don't think anyone in the world needs to worry about that. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
